There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago about a running store supporting distance running in the US. I think the store(s) had three locations in Texas. Anyway, the owners of the store or the person writing the article (I can’t remember which) contributed the decline in distance running to the decline of “communities of runners” that helped push each other to go faster in training.

So what they brothers that ran these stores are doing is trying to build a community of runners by providing food, housing, and a place to train in exchange for the runners working in their stores. The article said that these guys were the number two money contributors to distance running in the US. I’ll see if I can find the article on line.

The store is in Michigan, Hanson's Running Shop http://www.hansons-running.com/. The shop and the brothers are fantastic.

Thanks. Here's a link to the article:

http://online.wsj.com/...umbXmGca6Jm4,00.html

USATF National Championships were televised this past weekend. None of the male winners in the distance events (1500, 5k, 10k) achieved the Oly Qualifying "A" standard. (or the "B" standard I'm pretty sure)

I'm not trying to mud-sling, or belittle their performances, or the hard work and dedication it took to get them there, but jeesh. I digress, at least an American is winning the Ironman. ;)

---

"The more you sweat today, the less you bleed tomorrow"

great article, thanks for the read. hats off to the brothers.

i can see the point they are making, but only with the super elite.

but what about the 2:30 - 3:00 group? i thought this group decline was the most interesting. these people were not career runners in the early 80's. seems tough to blame it on lack of sponsorships or communities? in fact, i would think that run clubs for that group seem to be as big as ever, although in the early 80's i was skateboarding through shopping malls, so i'm guessing.

---

It's not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I managed to squeeze in 8 hours of TV a day - Homer Simpson

I at least partially agree with the Hanson's idea that 'communities of runners' are a very positive building block for a strong running program. The difficult thing is attracting the caliber of runners necessary. I train with an elite female runner who specializes in the 5,000 (when I say train I mean I follow the route she discusses and finish 2 miles shorter and 20-30 minutes slower than she does...) - she is a cool chick that really wants to pursue her dreams, but it is tough when she lives in MN and works a couple of part-time jobs for a living. (She is sponsored, and that helps, but still....MN?) I have started to run faster ever since I started running in the group runs she puts together...why? Because she challenges me and gives me a goal to chase (keeping up with her!)

America's elite distance runners very rarely have someone that they train with that they chase or strive to follow. They are already at the top in US running, with few local athletes at their caliber. How many triathletes train in a group and find tips and support from their fellow athletes? What are we doing posting on this forum if we aren't looking for guidance, encouragement and future goals? The luxury of having training partners that challenge you and force you to raise your own level of performance is wonderful and seems to be fairly common in triathlon, but it seems to be lacking in distance running. Nike has realized the benefit of training groups, and one of their runners won the Twin Cities Marathon last year. Team USA has realized the benefit which is why I can train with an elite runner in MN (a Team USA MN runner won the St. Louis Marathon women's overall) - we have a group of training elite runners in the area. Like I said, I think the Hanson's have the right idea, and so does Nike and Team USA. We're just behind the curve and have to work to catch up.

Now in terms of some of the other stats (finishers under 3hrs etc.) I don't really know what to say. Maybe more of the fast folks have moved on to traithlon (sure seems to be some fast folks there!) and ultra marathon or trail running? There are still a heck of a lot of people that qualify for Boston every year, (which is a fairly fast time) and there are more entrants into marathons in general which is a great trend as well. I think for the general public, first comes getting off the couch - then comes worrying about getting faster. I only just ran my first ever marathon (4:46) and bonked hard at 20 miles. There are all sorts of people that I train with every day of the week that I can learn from and can chase for speed motivation for my next marathon. What or who motivates the top American distance runner every day of the week? You can only push yourself without having concrete attainable goals for so long before the motivational fires die down.



Just my opinions.



Josh

Let me start by saying that in today’s sedentary society I think that exercise in general and mass participation in running, triathlon or any other endurance sport is a GREAT thing. However if we’re talking about the performance of elite American athletes, well, our performance has been sub-par. As a whole, our performance is not close to historic levels, but there are a number of guys/women that are making a great and really doing well, and I don’t in anyway mean to belittle their efforts.

As for the decline in quantity of elite level performance, I know that correlation does not equal causation, but I think that a number of factors at play.

1) The rise of other sports, particularly soccer. A lot of potentially good endurance athletes get drawn to this sport—if you look body types of elite runners and soccer players are somewhat similar. Consequently, we have a smaller pool of athletes to draw from.

2) Change in training methods. Runners in the 70s and 80s trained primarily using Lydiard’s principles—lots of miles. Look at the training those guys did and there are very few people doing that kind of volume today. Yes, high mileage does not necessarily make a good runner and it probably injures more than it helps, but for those that can survive 150+ mile weeks, the payoffs are immense. We’ve migrated from Lydiard influenced training to more Jack Daniels-type training which uses more controlled based intervals cruise type stuff.

3) Change is attitude. Today, “everyone is a winner.” In bringing endurance sports (esp. marathons) to the masses we’ve adopted the mindset that there’s no such thing as a loser...walking is okay, it’s important to have a positive, happy experience, we’re all part of the same team. This (and this is my belief) breeds an unwillingness to inflict self-pain or push beyond your perceived abilities. Essentially, as a society, we’re getting lazy and becoming wussies/soft. If you’re constantly being told that life, exercise, etc. doesn’t have to be painful or uncomfortable, it’s going to affect performance.

That’s all I have time for now.

Matt

Statistics are similar for cycling I'd guess, except for a few outliers (Lance and Lemond for example). We don't even have statistical outliers in track :(. Johnny Gray still has the 800 AR and I think Steve Scott still has the AR in the 1500 or mile (or both), then again, maybe it is Sydnee Marie (again close to 20yrs ago - and his record is like KK since he's not American born). I think Mark Nenow's record was only recently broke, of course, but a ANBIA (

Simply put, running and cycling are hard. Even harder when you want to do well because of the time investment. There are many other sports that offer much quicker (and less PAINFULL) gratification, especially in our "first is the only place that matters" society. I think (and I'm often wrong) that we are too sensitive to all the little aches and pains now, "quick, stop running and do some pool running or cross training for a few weeks until your twinge goes away" I know cross training is good for overall fitness but can be a crutch for runners - since it is "easier." There is a very fine line between FAST and INJURED and we are more and more unwilling to push that line, just bail out with cross training.

Plus you can often do the alternative exercise in an air conditioned gym, how can you beat that ? We have to get back to the roots, take 10 promising runners and run their butts them until 2 or 3 emerge as the true elites. Don't hold back the few to make it "easier for the many." If we are over sensitive to the other 8 or our group and cater to the majority we end up with 10 runners running 2:12-2:14, and potentially miss that 2:07 runner. If we have to sacrifice a handfull 2:14 marathoners to support one or two that CAN run 2:08, at least it is a start I guess. We simply don't have the pool of runners to chose from initially as Kenya for example and need to really focus on a few to eventually build a base. Remember when Kennedy was running well and he actually had a fan base of younger kids at the meets ?

When I was a kid in the 80's, all the runner in high school knew who Rogers and Shorter were. Who do the kids in high school know now ? Do they know Maurice Green or Adam Goucher? Marian Jones or Deanna Drossin? I'm pretty willing to bet the large majority of junior high/ high school kids have never heard of the latter of each comparison above.

 
1) The rise of other sports, particularly soccer. A lot of potentially good endurance athletes get drawn to this sport—if you look body types of elite runners and soccer players are somewhat similar. Consequently, we have a smaller pool of athletes to draw from.

3) Change is attitude. Today, “everyone is a winner.” In bringing endurance sports (esp. marathons) to the masses we’ve adopted the mindset that there’s no such thing as a loser...walking is okay, it’s important to have a positive, happy experience, we’re all part of the same team. This (and this is my belief) breeds an unwillingness to inflict self-pain or push beyond your perceived abilities. Essentially, as a society, we’re getting lazy and becoming wussies/soft. If you’re constantly being told that life, exercise, etc. doesn’t have to be painful or uncomfortable, it’s going to affect performance.[/reply]

#1. when i think of elite soccer players i think less than 5'10" and muscular (not stocky) at 180lbs. Low center of gravity gives players agility, muscles give them power on kicks, accelerating, and throwing elbows. Being unfamiliar with world class runners my perception is someone that's 6'2" and 160lbs.

#3 i hear that noise.

Burns

Being unfamiliar with world class runners my perception is someone that's 6'2" and 160lbs.[/reply]try about 5'7" and 125-130 for the men's marathon.

This is an interesting an complex subject - not sure where to begin.

How about reasons for the decline in distance running performance in the US and Canada:

1. There was a sharp drop in participation in running( track & XC) in the high school ranks back in the late 80's and early 90's in the US and Canada. The numbers have since rebounded.

2. Way more sports distractions now. Soccer is huge and other sports pull talented kids away from running

3. Way more "other" distractions that lead to a sedentary life and not an active one

4. Dispite all the talk zero increase in the amount of media coverage that distance running gets.

5. Back in the 70's early 80's high scool track and XC was performance driven. Winning and doing well WAS important. We got away from that in the late 80's and 90's and just participating was good enough. Now Winning and placing are big again.

Just some thoughts.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Indeed, if you are a man and can can a marathon in the 2:30 to 2:50 range you are a very rare breed these days. Stand on the sideline at any big marathon( NYC, Chicago etc . .) and there will be very few people coming in at this time. There will be all the top guys and then you are into a no-mans-land until the masses start storming across the line post 3:00.

Here's what I like to do. Every year I get the results of both NYC and Chicago and sometimes Boston up on the copmuter. Not to brag, but I have always figured that I could finish in the top 100 of each of these three marathons( I have a 2:40 marathon PR), if I ever ran them( never have - long story). The time for the 100th place finisher in each of these races has hovered in the 2:45 range for the last 10 years. I find that extraordinary considering the increase in the numbers of people running and finishing marathons. The stat that backs this up is that the average finishing time at the NYC marathon has gotton SLOWER over the years. That's right. More people running, but more people are running slower.

Nothting wrong with any of this. In a society that is sitting on a health time-bomb due to poor diet and lack of activity, I applaud and cheer anyone who gets out the door for a run.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I still think we kick everyone's ass in team cheerleading competition.

---

***

Money, adjulation and short competitive life span. How many 40 years old like Barry Bonds do you see competing and earning his kind of money in track? When was the last ad in which you saw the 400 meter world record holder and how old is he? What track guy was offered $100,000,000 by Nike when he graduated from high school? How many track teams have to put a salary cap of $37,000,000 annually or about $1,000,000 a player to stay competitive with other teams? The east and north African runners are revered for life and set for life financially. The west Africans are blessed with genetics that allow them to be the only people to be able to run under 10 seconds in 100 meters. If it were just having people, name me one Indian with a world record in a competitive running event and there are a billion Indians out there. You can show me a lot of Indians living in America who are billionaires, Sun Microsystems come to mind.
By the way, in the Cresent City Classic, the first 500 runners get a poster. When I ran the first 15 or so the time it took was sub 39, now it is sub 45.

Bob Sigerson

I read an article a few months ago (no, I can't remember where), that posited the following theory:

<<When the peak of the baby boom population was in the formative athletic years (junior high and high school), there were fewer organized sports activities and relatively more people pursuing those opportunities because (i) it was cooler to do sports then than it is now, and (ii) the schools were full of kids.

As a result, relatively good athletes were forced "down" to the less-marquee sports such as track and field. I'm into endurance sports, but let's face it, the best athlete in most parts of the U.S. is more likely to focus on basketball or football in high school, because that's who gets the attention, accolades, scholarships, girls, etc. So, the theory went, the kid who would have been the 4th best basketball player 10 years earlier, or the wide receiver (but not quite good enough to be tailback) on the football team, couldn't make the team or at least couldn't start during the "crowded years", so he went off to run track. 10 years earlier or later, that same kid plays the marquee sport, leaving only less talented athletes to pursue the second tier sports. The article went on to theorize that, as the children of the boomers start to move through, we may see a renaissance in track and field.>>

I ran this by the guy in the office next door to me (43 y/o), mainly to goad him because we are good friends and he ran track in high school and I played basketball. Response: "Well, that was definitely the case with me. I tried out for the basketball team every year through my junior year and always was cut, so that spring I turned to track. It turned out I was pretty good, so I really worked hard and had alot of success. If I had made the basketball team, I would never have even thought about running track." I, of course, reminded him that I was a highly mediocre high school basketball player and therefore superior to him in every way. He reminded me that he can still run the 800 in 2:07.

I think the theory holds some water when it comes to explaining why people aren't running 2:30-3 hour marathons. The 2:10's are a different story though.

"I read an article a few months ago (no, I can't remember where), that posited the following theory"

sounds like very insightful article, no doubt publsihed in an erudite, upscale magazine with a shrewd (and probably lucky) publisher.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/longrun/highschool.html

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"the decline in distance running to the decline of 'communities of runners'"

that's it. that's the reason.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

i agree that other things are taking over. the kind of person who would have been interested in running 15-30 years ago is interested in other things. first of all, there are those pesky triathletes who draw people away from 3 sports (or is just a place for people to go when they realize that they won't be the best of the best in whatever sport they've chosen? for me, that sport was swimming). but we also have a lot of people going to "extreme" sports (climbing, "eco-challence", etc.). and they we have the things that everybody else has mentioned (soccer, basketball, etc.). i'm no expert on genetics and how they influence performance, but a lot of muscle structure is developed. lance armstrong is an example; his triathlete body was heavy but powerful, but it probably prevented him from being the best cyclist in the world. only after cancer made him start from zero and build a true cyclist's body did he become the best in the world. i know this is overly-simplistic, but it's just an example to illustrated that the kids who have soccer or basketball players' bodies might have runners' bodies if they had been runners.

and there are video games and tv and the drive to material wealth, all of which take kids away from running.

I've been looking at the results of past NYC Marathons. It's really interesting that the deline in Americans times was so abrupt. In 1982, the last year won by an American , 50 people were under 2:20 and most were Americans. In 1983 63 were under 2:20 , again most Americans. In 1984 13 were under 2:20 and most not American. I remember the weather in '84 was extermely hot but the number of Americans under 2:20 never recovered. In 2002 21 were under 2:20 with only 1 American, the elite Meb Keflighzi.

I think the results of Boston and other races will show a similar pattern. The pattern also holds for sub 3 hour runners.

What happened?

Here's one guess.

People running in early 80's eased up on competitive running. Family and work commitments increased and injuries wiped out some. People in early 80's were motivated by US winners, Shorter, Rodgers, Salazar. Younger generation did not have this motivation. Running became more of a fitness activity, just cardio.

The change sort of parallels and is similar to the decline of white American basketball players, including feelings of being over matched by genetically superior African runners. The influx of white European basketball players shows that the genetic stuff is a lot of crap. The same holds for running.

Motivation seems key. Look at the cycles of American, British, Irish and now Morrocan Kenyan and Ethiopian runners.

What I am a little confused about is the difference and relationship between elite and sub-elite level running. The decline in the US was n both. Are the reasons the same and are they the same problem? Does the decline in sub 3 hour runners have an impact on the decline in American elites. Maybe it makes more sense the other way around. Decline in elite cut back 3 hour guys.

Anyway I think Dan is on to something with enclaves. There is a lot of talent, eg. Alan Webb, who seems to be floundering. On the elite level how do you get a talent like Webb to develop? Interestingly, his former Michigan teammates Berryhill and Broe qualified for the US team.

oh, heck, never mind, not a credible source.... :)

there was an article recently in the usa today that lamented the decline in talent levels and times for distance swimmers in the united states, and how far the u.s. has fallen behind the rest of the world in races such as the 1500m. the article mentioned how more swimmers are drawn to the glamor sprint events of 50-100m. i think similar comparisons can be made to running. the fact is the shorter events receive much more hype. sprint events are more conducive to tv coverage and to satisfying the ever shortening american attention span. as a result, you see very little coverage of longer events and there is little to draw kids to the sport at a young age. further, sports in america(the mainstream ones at least) are mostly based on quick, powerful movements--even soccer which obviously requires a strong aerobic base, often comes down to that powerful 30 yard sprint on goal--and that's what the kids are training for. its these types of factors that i believe are leading to the decline of the performance of american endurance athletes.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

There has also been a dilution in terms of the number of events, so you get a drop off in top times. No top US marathoner even enters Boston anymore. The first American was Eddy H., a top masters runner. The fast guys were all at Chicago trying to hit the A standard by running in a pack. A great big group of them pulled each other to 2:14 and change, all chasing Khalid, Broe and Culpepper. Culpepper, by the way, ran the fastest debut marathon in US history; he's got 2:05 potential. With so much riding on a few races, and on hitting the A standard, elite runners have to choose carefully where to race. Believe me, none of them are going to choose anything but Chicago or London. I'd be willing to bet that the list over at...

http://www.runningusa.org/cgi/ot-qual-sum.cgi

...didn't have that many sub-2:18 men on it 20 years ago.

The results at Stanford last week were disappointing, though.

Just a few observations from the past few years. This is NOT intented to spin off into a flame war so please understand this is only my observations.

Overall decline in marathon times for the general populace? Sure, why? A big reason from what I've seen is the overall attitude of "finishing" instead of racing a marathon. Many people are now putting "Completing a marathon" on their list of things to do. Times for them are irrelevent. A big push in the participation of this type of "race" is the large number of people doing races under the Team-in-Training" type programs.

Gallow-walking. I understand the concept and can do the math as Jeff explains it to see how it is possible to actually run faster with his suggested walking breaking, then just plodding along. Ok, I have 2 problems with this. First, it's a race. Second, it's a race. Do you think someone like Prefontaine ever thought that maybe if he walked a lap, that he could do a faster race? Walking breaks in training are fine, and sometimes needed. If I have to stop to walk in a race, other than to drink something, I'm done. I'll finish, but as far as racing that day, I'm done. Of course I've never done a full IM, so I can't say related to something that long, yet.

If Nike, Adidas, etc., would put the money that they give to ONE pro basketball player into a dedicated running program, I think we could see huge returns. But from the business side you just don't see them believing in a return on investment high enough to justify. Nevermind that participation is increasing, and they could reach out to a growing market.

TV networks do not take running or triathlon seriously. Example one, which earned NBC a detailed complaint via email from me (which I'm sure ended up in the delete file right away), was last Thanksgiving, they broadcasted the 2002 Hawaii IM race. Since the 37th college football game of the day was running over, they cut the IM coverage short. This is our Super Bowl. We wait all year for it, they cut it short (enough viewer complaints got a re-broadcast) and the coverage shown was horrible. I sent an email this year earlier, suggesting that for 2003, they actually show the folks on their bikes from a few feet away and stop zooming in on headshots. I WANT to see their position, equipment, etc. No one expects NBC, ESPN or OLN to show all 8+ hours of an IM race, just stop cutting it short, or having a 15 minute football update halfway through like in 2001. Could you imagine the complaining if they took 15 minutes of any NFL game coverage to update viewers on results at Boston, or some other IM race?

Americans are deskbound. Previous generations had more physically demanding employment. You don't even had to get off your butt to go through 200 channels of crap on TV, let alone do anything remotely physical anymore. Any activity (20 min a day, 3 times a week) is applauded on Oprah, and the evil fast food companies are all to blame!

Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now.

---

- Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke

soon, at least he said that was not part of his plans when I met him, its Paris and then Athens and not the marathon, and why would he even try given that KK can show up at the trials, win and not try..

As to the slowing of Americans, I am sure all of the following play a role and it is not one single item.

Culture

Diet

Alternatives

General decline in numbers of elite runners

General increase in Gallowwalkers

Changing attitude that finishing counts as much for a 5 hour marathoner as it does for a 2.15

All sorts of things play a role but Japan seems to be able to produce elites as well as the other obvious running countries so it is clearly not just a developed / undeveloped argument